tbuckley/cabot-search huggingface dataset:
Incarceration of Youths in an Adult Correctional Facility and Risk of Premature Death
Authors: Ian A. Silver, Daniel C. Semenza, Joseph L. Nedelec
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2023)

Youths incarcerated in adult correctional facilities are exposed to a variety of adverse circumstances that could diminish psychological and physical health, potentially leading to early mortality.To evaluate whether being incarcerated in an adult correctional facility as a youth was associated with mortality between 18 and 39 years of age.This cohort study relied on longitudinal data collected from 1997 to 2019 as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-1997, a nationally representative sample of 8984 individuals born in the United States between January 1, 1980, and December 1, 1984. The data analyzed for the current study were derived from annual interviews between 1997 and 2011 and interviews every other year from 2013 to 2019 (19 interviews in total). Participants were limited to respondents aged 17 years or younger during the 1997 interview and alive during their 18th birthday (8951 individuals; >99% of the original sample). Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to May 2023.Incarceration in an adult correctional facility before the age of 18 years compared with being arrested before the age of 18 years or never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years.The main outcome for the study was age at mortality between 18 and 39 years of age.The sample of 8951 individuals included 4582 male participants (51%), 61 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (1%), 157 Asian participants (2%), 2438 Black participants (27%), 1895 Hispanic participants (21%), 1065 participants of other race (12%), and 5233 White participants (59%). A total of 225 participants (3%) died during the study period, with a mean (SD) age at death of 27.7 (5.9) years. Incarceration in an adult correctional facility before the age of 18 years was associated with an increased risk of earlier mortality between 18 and 39 years of age compared with individuals who were never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years (time ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95). Being arrested before the age of 18 years was associated with an increased risk of earlier mortality between 18 and 39 years of age when compared with individuals who were never arrested or incarcerated before the age of 18 years (time ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93).In this cohort study of 8951 youths, the survival model suggested that being incarcerated in an adult correctional facility may be associated with an increased risk of early mortality between 18 and 39 years of age.
Patient Preferences for Pain Control After Mohs Micrographic Surgery
Authors: Shannon T. Nugent, Surya A. Veerabagu, Matthew Madden, Arianna F. Yanes, Jeremy R. Etzkorn, Christopher J. Miller, Joseph F. Sobanko, Thuzar M. Shin, H. William Higgins, Stacy L. McMurray, Joanna L. Walker, Junqian Zhang, Cerrene N. Giordano
Journal: JAMA Dermatology (2023)

Importance Patient preferences for pain medications after Mohs micrographic surgery are important to understand and have not been fully studied. Objective To evaluate patient preferences for pain management with only over-the-counter medications (OTCs) or OTCs plus opioids after Mohs micrographic surgery given varying levels of theoretical pain and opioid addiction risk. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective discrete choice experiment was conducted in a single academic medical center from August 2021 to April 2022 among patients undergoing Mohs surgery and their accompanying support persons (≥18 years). A prospective survey was administered to all participants using the Conjointly platform. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to February 2023. Main outcome and measure The primary outcome was the pain level at which half of the respondents chose OTCs plus opioids equally to only OTCs for pain management. This pain threshold was determined for varying opioid addiction risk profiles (low, 0%; low-moderate, 2%; moderate-high, 6%; high, 12%) and measured via a discrete choice experiment and linear interpolation of associated parameters (pain levels and risk of addiction). Results Of the 295 respondents (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.1] years; 174 [59%] were female; race and ethnicity were not considered) who completed the discrete choice experiment, 101 (34%) stated that they would never consider opioids for pain management regardless of the pain level experienced, and 147 (50%) expressed concern regarding possible opioid addiction. Across all scenarios, 224 respondents (76%) preferred only OTCs vs OTCs plus opioids after Mohs surgery for pain control. When the theoretical risk of addiction was low (0%), half of the respondents expressed a preference for OTCs plus opioids given pain levels of 6.5 on a 10-point scale (90% CI, 5.7-7.5). At higher opioid addiction risk profiles (2%, 6%, 12%), an equal preference for OTCs plus opioids and only OTCs was not achieved. In these scenarios, patients favored only OTCs despite experiencing high levels of pain. Conclusion and relevance The findings of this prospective discrete choice experiment indicate that the perceived risk of opioid addiction affects the patient’s choice of pain medications after Mohs surgery. It is important to engage patients undergoing Mohs surgery in shared decision-making discussions to determine the optimal pain control plan for each individual. These findings may encourage future research on the risks associated with long-term opioid use after Mohs surgery.
Abortion Is Essential to Fully Supporting Healthy Surgical Family Building
Authors: Julie Chor, Shari G. Snow, Nita Lee
Journal: JAMA Surgery (2023)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Surgery HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Journals JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Surgery journal
Vitiligo and keratinocytes or keratinocytes and vitiligo?
Authors: Mauro Picardo
Journal: British Journal of Dermatology (2023)

Journal Article Corrected proof Vitiligo and keratinocytes or keratinocytes and vitiligo? Get access Mauro Picardo Mauro Picardo Istituto Dermopatico Immacolata, IRCCS, Rome Italy Email: m.picardo@idi.it Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar British Journal of Dermatology, ljad200, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljad200 Published: 05 July 2023 Article history Received: 28 May 2023 Revision received: 04 June 2023 Accepted: 10 June 2023 Published: 05 July 2023 Corrected and typeset: 26 July 2023
Social Care Is Medical Care
Authors: Stephanie Bonne
Journal: JAMA Surgery (2023)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Surgery HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Journals JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Surgery journal
Transepidermal water loss rises before food anaphylaxis and predicts food challenge outcomes
Authors: Charles F. Schuler, Kelly M. O’Shea, Jonathan P. Troost, Bridgette Kaul, Christopher M. Launius, Jayme Cannon, David M. Manthei, George E. Freigeh, Georgiana M. Sanders, Simon P. Hogan, Nicholas W. Lukacs, James R. Baker
Journal: Journal of Clinical Investigation (2023)

BACKGROUNDFood allergy (FA) is a growing health problem requiring physiologic confirmation via the oral food challenge (OFC). Many OFCs result in clinical anaphylaxis, causing discomfort and risk while limiting OFC utility. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement provides a potential solution to detect food anaphylaxis in real time prior to clinical symptoms. We evaluated whether TEWL changes during an OFC could predict anaphylaxis onset.METHODSPhysicians and nurses blinded to the TEWL results conducted and adjudicated the results of all 209 OFCs in this study. A study coordinator measured TEWL throughout the OFC and had no input on the OFC conduct. TEWL was measured 2 ways in 2 separate groups. First, TEWL was measured using static, discrete measurements. Second, TEWL was measured using continuous monitoring. Participants who consented provided blood samples before and after the OFCs for biomarker analyses.RESULTSTEWL rose significantly (2.93 g/m2/h) during reactions and did not rise during nonreacting OFCs (-1.00 g/m2/h). Systemic increases in tryptase and IL-3 were also detected during reactions, providing supporting biochemical evidence of anaphylaxis. The TEWL rise occurred 48 minutes earlier than clinically evident anaphylaxis. Continuous monitoring detected a significant rise in TEWL that presaged positive OFCs, but no rise was seen in the OFCs that resulted in no reaction, providing high predictive specificity (96%) for anaphylaxis against nonreactions 38 minutes prior to anaphylaxis onset.CONCLUSIONSDuring OFCs, a TEWL rise anticipated a positive clinical challenge. TEWL presents a monitoring modality that may predict food anaphylaxis and facilitate improvements in OFC safety and tolerability.
Systemic immunosuppressive therapies for children with refractory atopic dermatitis: a large real-life cohort study
Authors: Ayelet Ollech, Rachel Lefferdink, Anjani Sheth, Alli Blumstein, Divya Ramachandran, Anette Wagner, Brandi Kenner-Bell, Anthony J Mancini, Sarah Chamlin, Lacey L Kruse, Stephanie M Rangel, Amy S Paller
Journal: British Journal of Dermatology (2023)

Systemic immunosuppressants are used off-label to treat paediatric patients with moderate-to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) for whom topical treatment has failed. A large real-life cohort of paediatric patients with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressive treatments is described in order to guide dermatologists’ prescribing practices when faced with a moderate to-severe AD paediatric patient who has failed or has a contraindication to topical treatment, phototherapy, biological agents or Janus kinase inhibitors.
HHS Report Focuses on Physical Activity Interventions for Older People
Authors: Emily Harris
Journal: JAMA (2023)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Journals JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Similarities and distinctions between acetazolamide and sodium–glucose cotransporter <scp>2</scp> inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure: Key insights into <scp>ADVOR</scp> and <scp>EMPULSE</scp>
Authors: Milton Packer, Javed Butler
Journal: European Journal of Heart Failure (2023)

Abstract Both acetazolamide and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors block sodium reabsorption in the proximal renal tubule primarily through inhibition of sodium–hydrogen exchanger isoform 3 (NHE3), but neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor acetazolamide produce a sustained natriuresis due to compensatory upregulation of sodium reabsorption at distal nephron sites. Nevertheless, acetazolamide and SGLT2 inhibitors have been used as adjunctive therapy to loop diuretics in states where NHE3 is upregulated, e.g. acute heart failure. Two randomized controlled trials have been carried out with acetazolamide in acute heart failure (DIURESIS‐CHF and ADVOR). In ADVOR, acetazolamide improved physical signs of fluid retention, but this finding could not be explained by the modest observed diuretic effect. Acetazolamide did not produce a natriuresis in the DIURESIS‐CHF trial, and in ADVOR, immediate effects on symptoms and body weight were not reported, and the drug had no effect on morbidity or mortality after 90 days. Three randomized controlled trials have been carried out with empagliflozin (EMPAG‐HF, EMPA‐RESPONSE‐AHF and EMPULSE) in acute heart failure. The EMPULSE trial did not report effects on diuresis or in changes in physical signs of congestion during the first week of treatment, but in EMPAG‐HF and EMPA‐RESPONSE‐AHF, empagliflozin had no effect of dyspnoea, urinary sodium excretion or body weight during the first 4 days. In the EMPULSE trial, empagliflozin improved health status at 15 days and reduced the risk of worsening heart failure events at 90 days, but these effects are similar in magnitude and time course to the early statistical significance on the risk of heart failure hospitalizations achieved within 14–30 days in the major trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure. Neurohormonal inhibitors produce this early effect in the absence of a diuresis. Additionally, in numerous randomized controlled trials, in‐hospital diuretic intensification has not reduced the risk of major heart failure events, even when treatment is sustained. These findings, taken collectively, suggest that any immediate diuretic effects of acetazolamide and SGLT2 inhibitors in acute heart failure are not likely to influence the short‐ or long‐term clinical course of patients.
Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on clinical outcomes in a prospective cohort study of hospitalised adults
Authors: Catherine Hyams, George Qian, George Nava, Robert Challen, Elizabeth Begier, Jo Southern, Maria Lahuerta, Jennifer L Nguyen, Jade King, Anna Morley, Madeleine Clout, Nick Maskell, Luis Jodar, Jennifer Oliver, Gillian Ellsbury, John M McLaughlin, Bradford D Gessner, Adam Finn, Leon Danon, James W Dodd
Journal: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2023)

Objectives To determine whether acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have worse outcomes than AECOPD caused by other infectious agents or non-infective AECOPD (NI-COPD). Design A two-hospital prospective cohort study of adults hospitalised with acute respiratory disease. We compared outcomes with AECOPD and a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 816), AECOPD triggered by other infections (n = 3038) and NI-COPD (n = 994). We used multivariable modelling to adjust for potential confounders and assessed variation by seasons associated with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. Setting Bristol UK, August 2020–May 2022. Participants Adults (≥18 y) hospitalised with AECOPD. Main outcome measures We determined the risk of positive pressure support, longer hospital admission and mortality following hospitalisation with AECOPD due to non-SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD and NI-COPD. Results Patients with SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD, in comparison to non-SARS-CoV-2 infective AECOPD or NI-COPD, more frequently required positive pressure support (18.5% and 7.5% vs. 11.7%, respectively), longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range, IQR]: 7 [3–15] and 5 [2–10] vs. 4 [2–9] days, respectively) and had higher 30-day mortality (16.9% and 11.1% vs. 5.9%, respectively) (all p &lt; 0.001). In adjusted analyses, SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD was associated with a 55% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 24–93), 26% (95% CI: 15–37) and 35% (95% CI: 10–65) increase in the risk of positive pressure support, hospitalisation length and 30-day mortality, respectively, relative to non-SARS-CoV-2 infective AECOPD. The difference in risk remained similar during periods of wild-type, Alpha and Delta SARS-CoV-2 strain dominance, but diminished during Omicron dominance. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2-related AECOPD had worse patient outcomes compared with non-SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD or NI-AECOPD, although the difference in risks was less pronounced during Omicron dominance.
Assessment of Oxygen Pulse in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy—Reply
Authors: Matthew T. Wheeler, Yu-Mao Chen, Jonathan Myers
Journal: JAMA Cardiology (2023)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Cardiology HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Journals JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Cardiology journal
Marketing and US Food and Drug Administration Clearance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Enabled Software in and as Medical Devices
Authors: Phoebe Clark, Jayne Kim, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2023)

Importance The marketing of health care devices enabled for use with artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) is regulated in the US by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for approving and regulating medical devices. Currently, there are no uniform guidelines set by the FDA to regulate AI- or ML-enabled medical devices, and discrepancies between FDA-approved indications for use and device marketing require articulation. Objective To explore any discrepancy between marketing and 510(k) clearance of AI- or ML-enabled medical devices. Evidence Review This systematic review was a manually conducted survey of 510(k) approval summaries and accompanying marketing materials of devices approved between November 2021 and March 2022, conducted between March and November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Analysis focused on the prevalence of discrepancies between marketing and certification material for AI/ML enabled medical devices. Findings A total of 119 FDA 510(k) clearance summaries were analyzed in tandem with their respective marketing materials. The devices were taxonomized into 3 individual categories of adherent, contentious, and discrepant devices. A total of 15 devices (12.61%) were considered discrepant, 8 devices (6.72%) were considered contentious, and 96 devices (84.03%) were consistent between marketing and FDA 510(k) clearance summaries. Most devices were from the radiological approval committees (75 devices [82.35%]), with 62 of these devices (82.67%) adherent, 3 (4.00%) contentious, and 10 (13.33%) discrepant; followed by the cardiovascular device approval committee (23 devices [19.33%]), with 19 of these devices (82.61%) considered adherent, 2 contentious (8.70%) and 2 discrepant (8.70%). The difference between these 3 categories in cardiovascular and radiological devices was statistically significant ( P &amp;amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review, low adherence rates within committees were observed most often in committees with few AI- or ML-enabled devices. and discrepancies between clearance documentation and marketing material were present in one-fifth of devices surveyed.
Genetic Variant Tied to Disability in People With Multiple Sclerosis
Authors: Emily Harris
Journal: JAMA (2023)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Journals JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal